In some sense, everything is similar. Just look at this as OO-version of standard xbase approach.
Instead of giving a code, I want to extend a little bit here to show your another similarity. When you use buffering, you have OLDVAL() and CURVAL(), right? Let say, when I start to edit a record I create record object (e.g. using NAME clause of Scatter command, if someone doesn't like scatter s/he can be sure that i create object differently), when it's going to Save.Click i create object from the same class and initiate it from record.fields again, i.e. I have 2 objects, one of them is equivavlent to OLDVAL() and another one is CURVAL(). Also, I can have the third similar object, which holds real user's entries. Is it not nice? Is it not powerful? Is it more like Fox2x, or truly OO-way?


>Hi Ed!
>
>Hmmm....so...to borrow a bit from Arnon's post, it is very similar to the old memvars in GETs pairings in old FP?
>
>I dunno about that. I find it much more productive to bind controls to views or tables. I originally tried something like that with VFP3 but it never worked well for me.
>
>But, if it works for you...all power to you!!!
>
>Do you think you could upload a sample form with small table to the Files section?
>
>
>>Dear UT members, once upon a time when VFP and UT were young we had some excellent discussions how to develop VFP interface. It was very good time because we really exchanged ideas, elaborating their own ways. So, now we probably develop things quite differently (VFP is very rich tool:). My preference is unbound interface. Many UT members already know what is this and I used not to repeat the same description many times. However, I understand that for some newcomers it can be confusing term. If someone, who doesn't know what is this about, and what implications it makes to whole application flow, I'm always ready to explain more.
>>Take nothing for granted, please!